Great Pyramid ~ East Wall QC art discovered ?

Originally posted by Lunica
Very interesting, just a great find.
Not that hard to recognize and to see.

And they dont look very much like hieroglyphs. Thats the best part btw

For the blind people in here (and skeptics...

)

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Lunica]

And they don't look Egyptian, either.

Now... let me say for the record that I have done some photo enhancement of rock art images here in the Southwest United States. I go to sites where we know there's paint (you can see the red still staining the rocks) and we photo enhance to see what the detail reveals.

When a group of people put up paint at a site they use certain materials and some stain better than others. For formal, official sites (like tombs and so forth) they use the art style that is preferred by their culture.

So (example) in the Devil's River area of Texas, we find paint smears that do resolve into one of three types of Pecos River art (depending on the age of the pictograph.) Some of the art is well over 3,000 years old.

If the chamber was decorated, it would have been covered with panels (granite is too slick for their painting materials to stick for any length of time) or stucco. We'd find traces of wood (which has apparently been found) or lots of bits of plaster (which apparently hasn't been found.) If for some reason they painted on the walls, the charcoal (black) paint would not have survived as well as the red (ochre, which stains everything) would have.

I don't see traces of ochre there and I don't see anything that looks like traditional art and hieroglyphs, so I think it's just imagination at work.

I *do* think the walls were decorated. I *don't* see any evidence of it in those photos, based on my 10 years of doing rock art research.

reply to post by Byrd


If it doesn't match the known style of art. Then this could possibly open that very nasty can of worms of were the pyramids older than thought and based on an even older society that is now long gone.

For me the verdict is still out but this does make me think.

It could be a nothing more than an active imagination or could it be something else
ancient Mediterranean art




[edit on 12-1-2009 by SLAYER69]




Mod Note: Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Tue Jan 13 2009 by Jbird]

reply to post by Byrd


Howdy Byrd

Interesting to have your more expert opinion Byrdto add to the mix. I did think that traces of Stucco were found in the upper parts of the Queen chamber?? Will check.

Checked

In 1646 John Greaves published “Pyramidographia: A description of the Pyramids in Egypt”, in his publication Mr. Greaves describes what he found inside the Queen’s Chamber as debris and stucco. It’s anyone’s guess what Mr. Greaves meant as debris; it’s tenuously possible that he may have been referring to broken pieces of the sarcophagus referenced by Edrisi.

From Pistol's orginal posting. However this is tertiary report and I was unlucky - and time pressed and couldn't find the original on line to check what old Greaves said. In the photo Pistol has there appears to be a patch of white that might be stucco in the upper left hand side - or is that a modern repair?

Hey Slayer

Can of worms....well if you look really close and put your eyes slightly out of focus.

[edit on 12/1/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Byrd


Sorry, I must be "blind", nothing here to see. ABSOLUTELY nothing...

I work with digital images for ages and all I see are the patterns in the stone (on the original image, that is).

Human eye (brain) tends to search for shapes and recognizable patterns in chaos (clouds anyone???) inside things, which after being carefully examined, no matter what we want them to be, are still chaotic and "designed" by nature...

Sorry, but I'm gonna call original article for what it really is, a BS

reply to post by Hanslune


Though the carving's/paintings are pretty much deteriorated, there is definite structure of higher than "Natural" occurrence's.
As I was looking upon the demonstrator picks, I thought to myself "That depiction looks very similar to the 'War Elephants' of the ancient Indonesians from the past.

Ancient Indonesian "War Elephant":

The history of ancient India is largely a history of Hindu culture and progress. Hindu culture has a distinct claim to a higher antiquity than Assyrian schools would claim for Sargon I and as much or even higher antiquity than Egyptian scholars would claim for the commencement of the first dynasty of Kings. One aspect of this culture consists in India's political institutions which were almost modern. Modern warfare has developed on mechanical lines, giving less scope for the qualities of courage and individual leadership. The value and importance of the army were realized very early in the history of India, and this led to the maintenance of a permanent militia to put down dissent within and arrest aggression from without. This gave rise to the Ksatriya warrior caste, and the ksatram dharmam came to mean the primary duty of war. To serve the country by participating in war became the svadharma of this warrior community.

www.hinduwisdom.info...

As a "Probable" thought of the topic of discussion, there is strong resemblance of the 'War Elephant' being the demonstrated pictures from the QC. As we all have concluded at some time or another , with out specific information the worlds acknowledgement of our history tends to sometime "Rewrite Itself" for the truths of the facts.

As only a "Possible" additional opinion of these new finds, there remains a strong possibility of there being "Lost Documentation" of the wars of this time, and with the 'Plume' that was touched upon in an earlier post, the Indonesians had also used such thing's as status symbols as well. The 'War Elephant' was used frequently and empirically for purposes of documenting and recording events of war.

Which brings me to the "Possibility" theory of there being some ties to a war with ancient Indian and the combination of the alleged carvings/paintings to describe a long lost fact of a death by an act of war?

it is only a "Theory" but seeing the Elephant so prominent and the Hippo so, "what should we say?" 'Under' the edifice, it would allow one to think it was some kind of notation of a lost ruler of a war with a country of use of such thing's as the "War Elephant".

Only a theory folks, but the resemblance is undeniable for the time period, which I will say , even for the pyramids themselves, "Incorrectly age assessed." IMHO

reply to post by Allred5923


Howdy Allred

Interesting theory but Elephants were available for the Egyptians to see if they went very far south or they could be seen in North Africa and were the famous war elephants of Hannibal and Pryyhus. There were also elephants in the middle east but they went extinct around 3000 BP, They are recorded in the art of those civilizations. I don't recall if the elephant was in the Nile valley in pre-dynastic and old kingdom days.

The logistics of a war between the Harappa and Egypt would have been very difficult - and what would they have fought about? The Indians are not noted as being one of the nine enemies of the Egyptians (nine bows).

Meh, I'm not so convinced. I can see the elephant, but nothing in any of the other images.

One would need topographical photographs or something, I'm not so sure about image analysis like this, too susceptible to the imagination.

reply to post by Byrd



Has your opinion changed since your post was rebutted on the site's own forum?


[edit on 12-1-2009 by rizla]

The original poster at the Hall of Ma'at on this subject has put of more images

Here ya go

Well, I go with no comment on these.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Byrd

 

If it doesn't match the known style of art. Then this could possibly open that very nasty can of worms of were the pyramids older than thought and based on an even older society that is now long gone.

Actually, no.. because it doesn't match the older styles of art. There's Egyptian rock art around... and it doesn't look anything like that.

Originally posted by rizla
reply to post by Byrd

 

Has your opinion changed since your post was rebutted on the site's own forum?


[edit on 12-1-2009 by rizla]

The new images, honestly, are even LESS convincing.

Here's the problems I have with it:
* doesn't match the style of any Egyptian art.
* far too small to be actual painting on limestone (if you were doing it, it wouldn't be that crisp unless you painted it huge.)
* doesn't show any of the red ochre... and they used red all the time.
* the images aren't aligned... it's sort of like looking at a tree and seeing a dog's face in one set of leaves and a boat in another set of leaves and branches and so forth. The Egyptians were somewhat fanatical about art and design and this is very un-designed. Yes, you would find un-designed art done by Just Plain Folks... but not in national monuments. (as an example, the statue of Abe Lincoln in the Lincoln memorial was not carved by a six year old... or even an adult with average carving skills.)
* they don't show up on a straight enhancement. When I work with rock art, it takes one tweak of the color settings and the images pop right out. You don't have to work an area and blur some things and overenhance the blacks on other things. You carefully choose what you're enhancing and by how much.

I can see that a number of people will hop on it... he's made the elephant look very charming. The "woman with headdress" (no known style of headdress) is another one as well as the beetle that may be seen as incontrovertible proof.

But as someone who's been researching North American rock art (and the native Americans work with the same types of pigments as the ancient Egyptians), I don't see anything that convinces me. I'd like to see something, yes. I think it WAS decorated... but I don't think he's found it.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Byrd]

reply to post by Byrd


Yeah the new stuff is even more vague - I think we're going to go into another pattern recognition theme like the vague 'Mar's rocks' saga.

Easy to solve the question however, a ladder, a strong multi-spectrum light and a good magnifier and you'll have the answer.

Hey question Bryd. With your rock art experience what equipment, techniques and methodologies would you use to examine this issue?

To me, this is less impressive with the second batch of photos. Like Byrd was saying earlier they're not in the Ancient Egyptian style. Also, there is no context for these pictures. The Egyptians didn't haphazardly place pictures of any kind just where ever, so why are these that way?

It's looking more like seeing what one wants to see.

cormac

Originally posted by Byrd
I *do* think the walls were decorated. I *don't* see any evidence of it in those photos, based on my 10 years of doing rock art research.

I do see the evidence, its very obvious. I am researching anomalies for over 15 years.

Its very well possible they used a method we dont think of in contrast of our (mainstream) understandings of the past.

If the chamber was decorated, it would have been covered with panels (granite is too slick for their painting materials to stick for any length of time) or stucco. We'd find traces of wood (which has apparently been found) or lots of bits of plaster (which apparently hasn't been found.) If for some reason they painted on the walls, the charcoal (black) paint would not have survived as well as the red (ochre, which stains everything) would have.

You assume they used these sort of methods. Well, if the egyptians didnt make the pyramids, which is quite well possible, they could very well used other devices. Like there are also found other pyrogliephs in granite which date over 1000ths of years. Impossible in our way of thinking..

As the evidence shows us, it is possible

And tells me a lot.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
To me, this is less impressive with the second batch of photos. Like Byrd was saying earlier they're not in the Ancient Egyptian style. Also, there is no context for these pictures. The Egyptians didn't haphazardly place pictures of any kind just where ever, so why are these that way?

It's looking more like seeing what one wants to see.

cormac

You also forget the GREAT possibility the Egyptians as we know didnt build the pyramids. Someone else did. Egyptians dont talk about building the pyramids in the 10.000s of hyroglyphs. However they speak about the gods made some big things...

There is VERY, I say VERY little chance to find this sort of patterns in granite, with such detail.
There is much less chance you find such in a pyramide in the same time.

Hello,

Great find

Just wanted to put my thoughts out there.

Looking at the elephant image. The elephant seems too "cartoon rendered" to me. It does not look like Egyptian Art. It appears to be showing emotion, like the elephant is miffed at someone (most probably people poking it with spears for its ivory :lol.
Does Egyptian art often portray emotion from its human subjects let alone animal? Not to my knowledge, but maybe it is just me who sees the elephant in this manner?

Also, were elephants even in Egypt during such times? Not according to the below (however, someone much better versed in Egyptology could help me out here):

Elephants, on the other hand, had apparently disappeared from Egypt by the historical period [Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods]. Nevertheless, some elephant ivory was brought into Egypt from Nubia

Source

Hunting elephants
Thutmose I
The glory of king Aakheperkare, the blessed, he has brought these elephant tusks, from his victories [in the southern and northern countries. His majesty hunted x] elephants [in the land of Naharin, being on a] horse carriage [after his majesty had set out in order to subdue Upper [Reten]u on [his x-th victorious campaign.
His majesty reached the the land] Ny [and found there these elephants. Never has anything similar occurred to earlier] kings. [These elephant tusks which his majesty [brought from this land, he gave them to the House of his father Amen, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, after] returning home in [strength, in victory and in triumph, after overcoming his enemies.

-Thutmose I (Akheperkare) (1527-1515)
-Naharin: Today's Syria
-Retenu: Canaan
-There were no elephants in Egypt in historic times
-elephant tusks: luxuries generally received as tribute from Nubia or traded from Punt. A large part of the ivory used in Egypt came from hippos.
-Two Lands: Egypt

Source

So whatever this elephant is doing in the art, it must be pertaining to hunting in other lands. I was thinking Nubia (but cannot find any artistic references yet) or India, however, Indian elephant art seems to be much more decorated.

Personally, I think that this is unlikely to be attributed to ancient Egypt.

It is a case of Pareidolia only..just as most of the posters wrote.

I find it interesting that egyptians have depicted aliens, psychedelics, and Le Lines or earth grid energy using creatures and people in pose.

Howdy Cormac

Yeah I think Pistol started with his best data, its getting pretty pattern heavy now.

Howdy Lunica - hey like the name

Hmmmm an unknown technique to organize or place into the matrix of granite images.....possible but I think once someone with some experience takes a look at those areas of the Queen's chamber we'll have our answer.

Not sure what you meant by 'pyrogliephs'? I think you may have misspelled the word - do you mean some sorta pattern seen in other granite objects??

"You also forget the GREAT possibility the Egyptians as we know didnt build the pyramids."

About as possible as the chance Rudyard Kipling wrote Lennon's music. However lets not derail the thread. If you think you have a new point on this find one of the older threads to comment in or start another based on some new premise.

Howdy george_gaz

Elephants, yes I looked into that above, Elephants during that time frame were in North Africa and the middle east - and much farther to the south. They may have existed in the Fayum but died out well before the dynastic period.

Howdy Coredrill

Well your opinion is uncompromizing. I mostly agree but will await a more thorough examination of those areas of the Queen's chamber.